... the next time a blue chip recruit makes a head-scratching college choice out of college. It ain’t for the gumbo.

[StunningSteve]

What do you pay them though? How is paying them gonna stop a kid from taking 300K?

This.

/endofthread

 

[bmayuc]

Some schools? The vast majority. How many schools make big profits from their football programs? UConn would certainly be finished.

What you're suggesting is a a professional league with almost no rules.

In terms of equitable competition,it would be the furthest thing from just as you could possibly imagine.

It would create a system where the most well heeled boosters win.

He's not wrong. College Athletics as a whole would be done.

No.

1. All professional leagues have rules. That false assertion is very easy to bat down. Here's a couple example's of professional leagues with rules : NBA, MLB, NHL, EPL, etc. And those "rules" include much stronger protections and guarantees for the workers who actually produce the product of the league. They are called "unions".

2. Do you consider the current cartel system of the Power 5 to be a "equitable system". Before you answer keep in mind we LITERALLY call the scrub NCAA tournament teams CINDERELLAS because they are poor, in a different social and economic class, and have no chance because the tournament is of course non-equitable. Unless, of course, you think Duke getting 3 5 star recruits in every class is a great example of fairness? C'mon wake up.

3. Most schools lose money on sports now. Think D3, D2, D1AA. By your logic, why do any of those schools play football, basketball, lacrosse, soccer? The answer, of course, is that 99% of collegiate athletics is done to increase the student experience, extracurriculars, etc. etc. These are all fine reasons to have athletic programs and none would be affected. At all. Schools that opt out of the rat race of the 1% of schools involved in high level football/basketball would just... continue with business as usual. Imagine that? It wouldn't collapse society after all.

The difference is that at the highest level, it becomes free market. "Boosters" as you all use would be a meaningless term. They would be "Program Sponsors" legitimately instead of illicitly. So instead of a bag of cash from the user car dealer "booster" now you have an above board sponsorship. Where there used to be shady shoe company involvement is now just... NIKE Sponsoring player endorsements transparently at their sponsor schools. The term "booster" is a term born of illicit affairs. This system bring that crap above board, pays the players a fair market wage, and the rest of the system can just... carry on as normal.

What exactly is the problem there?

****if you say the problem is that UConn can't compete, I both disagree generally and also beleive it is not a sufficient reason to not support a more just system. If the only thing that supports our success is a corrupt system that is not a good reason to not support a more just system.

 

[Greathusky]

I propose that we replace "One Shining Moment" with a Buffett classic "I will Play for Gumbo".

 

[UConnNick]

This would just result in another professional league run by small number of universities that can afford to pay players. Also, what would be the point of these players being students when they are employees getting paid big salaries. Most schools that can’t afford to pay, would probably just continue with the current model and not play the schools with “professional” players.

Paying players would be a disaster for college sports. I’d rather schools continue to try to pay players under the table. If they get away with it so be it, if they get caught then they have to deal with significant consequences.

The problem is there have been no significant consequences to date, except at SMU. Does anybody else find it terribly ironic that we are currently in a conference with the only school to ever get really hammered by the NCAA?

 

[EBonz30]

What do you pay them though? How is paying them gonna stop a kid from taking 300K?

Open market, just like everything else in the world is. Pay the kids what they are worth to the school.

 

[Stinger92860]

I wonder how much Waters received?

 

[Essexdave]

You think players who can currently get potentially up to 300K are gonna be happy with 10K? Ok lol.

The reality is the entire amateurism model is based on restricting players from being paid their worth. We don't really know what that value is right now, because an entire ecosystem has developed around them being paid nothing at all. But I have a feeling that going from 0 to 10K aint gonna cut it

Allowing the schools to pay players opens a can of worms t9 and discrimination suits. Many schools unable to compete. The solution , IMO, allow any player in any sport to make whatever they can from outside sources.

 

[BlueDogs]

You think players who can currently get potentially up to 300K are gonna be happy with 10K? Ok lol.

The reality is the entire amateurism model is based on restricting players from being paid their worth. We don't really know what that value is right now, because an entire ecosystem has developed around them being paid nothing at all. But I have a feeling that going from 0 to 10K aint gonna cut it

Last time I checked a college education cost 160k out of state for 4 years at minimum. It really pissses me off knowing how many kids and families borrow and use their life savings to get what these kids don’t appreciate. The real problem is college players are no longer there to go to college. If they think they are worth something then go try and play in the NBA and see how that works out. Not only to they have an opportunity to learn, they get a free stage to showcase their talents under a brand name, and get generally great coaching and programs to develop their skills. It’s a friggin bargain. Under that model, The only kids getting ripped off are those paying their way.

 

[andy34]

Last time I checked a college education cost 160k out of state for 4 years at minimum. It really pissses me off knowing how many kids and families borrow and use their life savings to get what these kids don’t appreciate. The real problem is college players are no longer there to go to college. If they think they are worth something then go try and play in the NBA and see how that works out. Not only to they have an opportunity to learn, they get a free stage to showcase their talents under a brand name, and get generally great coaching and programs to develop their skills. It’s a friggin bargain. Under that model, The only kids getting ripped off are those paying their way.

As has been noted before in this thread, the "200K" and "160K" figures thrown out there about the value of a 4 year college education are wildly inflated, for a number of reasons. The marginal cost for a college to add an athlete to a few classes is extraordinarily lower. The high cost of higher education has a lot of reasons, and I would hope anyone really concerned with the cost of college would advocate for making college free, like most of the rest of the world. Also, I'm one of the kids who "got ripped off" and is paying loans a decade after I finished at UConn. Hasn't stopped me from pushing for a better system. Lastly, the value of the "brand name" of the college is in large part due to the free labor that players have provided to the universities. Their prestige has been constructed on the backs of unpaid labor - today's players have a platform built by players in the past. The great coaches and great programs are all financed by media and sneaker deals...... which are valuable themselves because of the players. Every student is getting ripped off, we can both advocate for payers to be paid and for college to be free.

 

[huskymedic]

I wonder how much Waters received?

He got extra $hrimp, Crawdad$ and Andouille $ausage in his gumbo.

Can’t believe it took 125 posts before his name came up. I figured it would be in the first few.

 

[upstater]

Does your boss pay you in food? Or would you prefer to have a salary?

Also the NLRB decided that players cannot form a union. Not sure what you're referring to, though maybe there is some context I'm missing.

Food, housing, $6k, training, tuition.

This is much more than 75% of the people teaching the classes get.

Like I said, you asked how the universities could justify exploitation. I simply answered that there are classes of exploited workers.

 

[upstater]

As has been noted before in this thread, the "200K" and "160K" figures thrown out there about the value of a 4 year college education are wildly inflated, for a number of reasons. The marginal cost for a college to add an athlete to a few classes is extraordinarily lower. The high cost of higher education has a lot of reasons, and I would hope anyone really concerned with the cost of college would advocate for making college free, like most of the rest of the world. Also, I'm one of the kids who "got ripped off" and is paying loans a decade after I finished at UConn. Hasn't stopped me from pushing for a better system. Lastly, the value of the "brand name" of the college is in large part due to the free labor that players have provided to the universities. Their prestige has been constructed on the backs of unpaid labor - today's players have a platform built by players in the past. The great coaches and great programs are all financed by media and sneaker deals. which are valuable themselves because of the players. Every student is getting ripped off, we can both advocate for payers to be paid and for college to be free.

There is no marginal cost to add players. Every student is the same. Departmental funding for salaries/labor is based on head counts. That's how workers get paid.

The real cost at a place like UConn can be measured in expenditure per student. I don't know what it is but at most universities like UConn it is $20-25k per year. When you add sports training, it's likely a lot more than that.

 

[upstater]

Does your boss pay you in food? Or would you prefer to have a salary?

Also the NLRB decided that players cannot form a union. Not sure what you're referring to, though maybe there is some context I'm missing.

Thanks for the update on the union. Last I read, this was the decision: Northwestern players get union vote

 

[upstater]

Revenue is not the same as profit.

Non-revenue, revenue is just the terminology they use in college sports to refer to self-sustaining programs. Those are not my terms. To a degree, every single program brings in revenue. The distinction is for which programs stand on their own.

Again, not my terms.

 

[UCDaveD]

I don’t give a either way, but lmfao at the dude saying that Zion’s brand would be anything near what it is now had he gone overseas for a year. Yeah, because everyone’s dying to see Lega Basket Serie A games. SVP kicking off Sportscenter with those Torino vs Bologna highlights. Heard Zion dropped 20 vs Umana Reyer Venezia. Screw the NCAA tournament, those overseas playoff games are appointment television!

 

[BlueDogs]

As has been noted before in this thread, the "200K" and "160K" figures thrown out there about the value of a 4 year college education are wildly inflated, for a number of reasons. The marginal cost for a college to add an athlete to a few classes is extraordinarily lower. The high cost of higher education has a lot of reasons, and I would hope anyone really concerned with the cost of college would advocate for making college free, like most of the rest of the world. Also, I'm one of the kids who "got ripped off" and is paying loans a decade after I finished at UConn. Hasn't stopped me from pushing for a better system. Lastly, the value of the "brand name" of the college is in large part due to the free labor that players have provided to the universities. Their prestige has been constructed on the backs of unpaid labor - today's players have a platform built by players in the past. The great coaches and great programs are all financed by media and sneaker deals. which are valuable themselves because of the players. Every student is getting ripped off, we can both advocate for payers to be paid and for college to be free.

The market sets the value and marginal cost is not a sound argument.

 

[CL82]

It's not complicated, schools should be free to pay their employees what they believe they are worth, including athletes. If actually paying your workers endangers your entire industry, then that's a pretty harsh indictment of the industry. Or put another way, who is more deserving of fairness and equity: the workers who have heretofore been unpaid, or the institutions who have financially benefited from unpaid work for decades?

Know your niche. College sports hook is that these guys students who go out and play sports for old state U. Yes, I know that that is idealized version of college sports, but take it away and they essentially become the D-league or minor league ball. And the whole ball of wax unravels.

Oh and just in case you haven't thought this through, UConn is running its sports programs at a deficit right now (we can debate whether is really a $40M deficit or "just" a $20M deficit) adding more cost to it kills college sports for us.

 

[weyuo]

What kills me is every time I hear that these kids aren't getting paid I have to wonder why all the non athletes at UConn are shelling out thousands to attend the same school. They have to pay for their own books, food, medical expenses, transportation and don't get a free national TV stage to audition for potential employers. The average UConn student doesn't have state of the art physical training facilities yet part of their tuition pays for the upkeep for those who do. I don't buy this pay the players nonsense. If you want to pay them as an employee then Let them pay the school back for their cost once they leave early, get booted for violations and under performing. Let them pay the school back for expensive medical surgeries that the average student and/or their parents have to pay for. Add up what free housing, tuition, books, tutors, food, state of the art health care, transportation, training facilities and weekly auditions on national TV for perspective employers costs and trell me they aren't already getting paid. Oh, and throw a four year college degree in as icing on the cake. I think they get paid plenty already.

And for any student athlete that thinks they should get paid cash on top of everything else they get for free from the school just think of the alternative. Where would you be without the scholarship? Start paying players and less schools will be able to compete and will eventually drop the sport(s). Less sports means less scholarships means less free rides. Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it and the consequences.

 

[ucp990411]

What is so off base about his first paragraph? There shouldn't be any age limit for the NBA but I don't see what's such a load of cr@p about what he said.

There should not be any age limit for any sport. If a player is good enough and thinks he can handle it without college than go for it. Just like any other job. But the NCAA would fight it. I can’t believe this age rule has not been challenged in court

 

[Robertelamin]

There should not be any age limit for any sport. If a player is good enough and thinks he can handle it without college than go for it. Just like any other job. But the NCAA would fight it. I can’t believe this age rule has not been challenged in court

The NCAA doesn’t have a say in the matter since these are the NBA and NFL rules. I believe Maurice Clarett challenged it in court and lost.

 

[UCDaveD]

There should not be any age limit for any sport. If a player is good enough and thinks he can handle it without college than go for it. Just like any other job. But the NCAA would fight it. I can’t believe this age rule has not been challenged in court

Didn’t Maurice Clarett try to challenge the NFL’s age limit in court and get smacked down?

 

[gtcam]

It's not complicated, schools should be free to pay their employees what they believe they are worth, including athletes. If actually paying your workers endangers your entire industry, then that's a pretty harsh indictment of the industry. Or put another way, who is more deserving of fairness and equity: the workers who have heretofore been unpaid, or the institutions who have financially benefited from unpaid work for decades?

Since when are athletes employees? These athletes get scholarships worth tens of thousands of dollars and in the major schools they are given housing that the normal student would only dream about. Their food, on the road is better than any other student plus they all get free tutoring. NOBODY is twisting their arms to go to school - they can got to Europe or Asia and play.
I think all universities pay their employees what they think they are worth and like in any other case if the employees don't agree - find another job. College athletes are not employees. If they want to be an employee, they can go to any of the outlets available to them, get paid and as in most jobs - produce or you are out - quite a bit different from college.

 

[smoothcriminal]

It’s all about the Benjamin’s .

 

[andy34]

Since when are athletes employees? These athletes get scholarships worth tens of thousands of dollars and in the major schools they are given housing that the normal student would only dream about. Their food, on the road is better than any other student plus they all get free tutoring. NOBODY is twisting their arms to go to school - they can got to Europe or Asia and play.
I think all universities pay their employees what they think they are worth and like in any other case if the employees don't agree - find another job. College athletes are not employees. If they want to be an employee, they can go to any of the outlets available to them, get paid and as in most jobs - produce or you are out - quite a bit different from college.

I didn't say that athletes were employees - obviously, that isn't technically the case. But I implied that in essence they are, because they provide labor for the university, they just aren't paid for it the same way other employees are. Other employees earn a wage commensurate with the value that the job market determines they are worth. For some straaange reason, the athletes who unarguably produce vast amounts of wealth for the universities are only "paid" pennies on the dollar. I don't think that's right.

 

[Engineer90]

Here are a few sticking points:

1. Sunk costs. Universities have a lot of money invested in facilities. What happens to them if college sports goes away?
2. If there is no good answer to #1, how do they pay for operations and maintenance of those facilities?
3. Football has no minor league at all.
4. Basketball's minor league is insufficient.
5. What happens to all the people employed by ADs if it all goes away?
6. Elimination of revenue sports has to occur across the board at all colleges. Sports is advertising for colleges and many schools would fear what happens to them if they drop sports and others don't.

Club sports are great. Intermurals are great. Pseudo-professional sports and academics are not great. The NFL needs to create a minor league. Make a deal with colleges to use their facilities, if necessary. But the teams need to be tied to NFL teams and not colleges. The NBA needs to expand their minor league to be like MLB's or European soccer. THEN people would watch just like they watch AAA ball. It works for soccer in Europe and it works for baseball here. You just need to build the minor league system properly. What basketball has now is a half-arsed hybrid mutant system.

Colleges need to eliminate all athletic scholarships just like the Ivies have done. Hell, they should eliminate all admissions benefits too. It is a disgrace that far more qualified kids are pushed out. But that won't happen until there is no longer money to be made and that won't happen until proper minor leagues are in place.